Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — no authentication is required — plus the 'current version' note implying versioned content. It still says nothing about failure behavior for unknown slugs or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core action (get markdown by slug) front-loaded, followed by the access note. 'No obligation' is slightly ambiguous phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (markdown), how it is keyed (slug), and the access model (no auth). Only edge cases like missing slugs are unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter and the description clarifies its role: the slug is the identifier used to look the recipe up. That adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'type: string' but provides no format or example guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Get), resource (recipe), output format (markdown), and lookup key (slug). The 'as markdown' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_recipe_details and download_recipe, though no sibling is named outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the markdown output format and the 'no obligation, no auth' note, which tells the agent it can call this freely. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_recipe_details or download_recipe, so the agent must infer the choice from the format hint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.